But anyways, who said that Apple is even going to release this "rumored" iPad product on Wednesday anyways? For all we know, it could be the iSlate tabletop computer or some other touch-device, Apple has not specified that the event is for a "new" iPad. Come on, the iPad 2 just came out!!! I read a report last week that several Airlines have ordered hundreds of thousands of iPad 2's for delivery next month. The iPad 2 is new!! If there is such a thing as "iPad 3" even being developed, it probably won't be out until sometime in 2013. Apple is certainly not planning to release a new tablet right now -- all of this stuff is pure rumor and hearsay.

Where have you been for the past year?? The iPad 2 hasn't just come out, it was approx 1 year ago, and apple releases it's iOS products once a year. Aside from all the mounting evidence as to what we will see at the announcement, the apple invite has a picture of an iPad on it! Get real.

I think iPad 3 is too repressed for the level of change this display brings. They did that with the iPhone 4 so it wouldn't be unprecedented but the iPhone 4 also got a huge change to the casing. I'm thinking iPad HD sounds good, or at least good enough that I've been using it for a week now, as the best option I've heard.

PS: Maybe Apple will give devs a week to remove HD from their app names if they aren't ready for the 2048x1536 display.

Yes I’m over the wall of application icons all branded with “HD” to identify them as iPad specific. Apple needs to reign this in and encourage more developers to release universal apps.

Better to watermark “HD” on the buy button like they do with “+” for universal applications.

Certainly, a retina of this size is significant, and HD is pretty much ubiquitous for high-definition anything. So it understandably could be used in the name.

There have been a lot of rumors discussed about the hardware features: Number of CPU/GPU cores, RAM, etc.

About the only non-hardware rumor has been Siri -- pretty much assumed to be on the next iPad.

I have this nagging feeling that we are all, somehow, missing a bigger picture...

There has been no iOS SDK for the retina display (or anything iPad 3), Why?

The iCloud infrastructure is in place, well-accepted -- yet nothing special for the iPad...

OSX Mountain Lion is available to developers -- including some more iOS-like constructs, but they still don't quite match up...

Apple's OSX iWork, iPlay apps are long in the tooth as are their iOS equivalents...

There seems to be a post-pc environment for specialized "semi-pro" apps from Autodesk, Avid, Adobe...

The absence of a solution for a "mobile file [access] system" grows more critical as iPad apps evolve from stand-alone widgets to sophisticated apps with a need to interact with other apps -- on the iDevice, on the Cloud and on the Desktop...

Maybe it really isn't about the hardware as much as establishing a base-line for developers to interact with Apple's infrastructure.

As a user and shareholder, I hope that Apple exploits the opportunity -- raising the potential uses for the iPad and sends the competition back to the drawing boards...

It ain't just the hardware!

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Why would Apple go with a generic and beaten-to-death marketing term like HD, when...
a) even 1080p HD severely under-states the rumored resolution of an iPad retina display, and
b) it would completely overshadow the more Apple-unique 'Retina Display' marketing term that's caught on rather well over the last year.

Just doesn't make sense.

I agree that it doesn't make sense. To call a 4:3 screen "HD" is to bastardize the term. If a TV maker did it, the FTC would rightly call them to the carpet for misleading advertising.

Why would Apple go with a generic and beaten-to-death marketing term like HD, when...
a) even 1080p HD severely under-states the rumored resolution of an iPad retina display, and
b) it would completely overshadow the more Apple-unique 'Retina Display' marketing term that's caught on rather well over the last year.

Just doesn't make sense.

Severely understates? Hyperbole much? The most specific name for the resolution, QXGA, is cumbersome, HD communicates the message just fine.

HD in today's market is used to refer to resolutions like 720p and 1080p.
And there's already an upper-limit for use of the "HD" term, with terms like "2K" and "4K" starting to replace "HD" in the industry for displays with larger numbers of pixels.

iPad 2 HD sounds about right. Apple tends to save major version upgrades for products that look physically different. I think it's also part of their planned upgrade cycles for customers. Apple knows most people who bought an iPad 2 aren't going to rush out and buy an iPad 2012 model. So they keep the design and name similar to communicate that the new model has 'nice to have' features but isn't such a huge generational leap that you should have buyers remorse over your previous generation model. The new display will be beautiful but I still think it's a 'nice to have' feature not a 'must have' feature for most people.

Therefore, this one will have a retina display but for marketing reasons the next one wont.

genius

That's like saying the iPhone 3GS was speedier than the iPhone 3 but the iPhone 4 wasn't speedier than the iPhone 3GS because it didn't contain an 'S' at the end of the name. Once you go Retina Display it will become the standard display in a year when the iPad 2 stops being sold.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

iPad 2 HD sounds about right. Apple tends to save major version upgrades for products that look physically different. I think it's also part of their planned upgrade cycles for customers. Apple knows most people who bought an iPad 2 aren't going to rush out and buy an iPad 2012 model. So they keep the design and name similar to communicate that the new model has 'nice to have' features but isn't such a huge generational leap that you should have buyers remorse over your previous generation model. The new display will be beautiful but I still think it's a 'nice to have' feature not a 'must have' feature for most people.

IMO, a retina display on the new iPad would be a total game changer. Like night and day. Much more so than an incremental increase in CPU speed. And much more apparent to average consumers.

I really hope not...then what will the iPad fourth generation be called?

iPad HDS, and then IPad 3D...

It's really not that difficult to imagine this... I don't see what the big deal is here.... And when the article talks about apple's "usual naming scheme" , they obviously have no idea what they are writing about... Did they think the iPhone 3G stood for 3rd gen iPhone.?? Where do they get the people that write these articles..???

A whole year and they can't come up with a new model? S and now HD? Sounds like fragmentation.

rc69 may be a curmudgeon (judging by previous posts) but I gotta believe this post was meant to be witty (sarcasm). As such,
Its funny.

On the subject of naming - I am happy with iPad 2, iPad 3 or iPad HD. Any one will do just fine. iPad RD would have been the clever name, but really, what's in a name? Not every company seems to get it but Apple does - naming a product is just marketing and so HD is the one. It will appeal to the masses, it says 'new and improved', focussing attention on the screen and not building up expectations of a radically different looking iPad.

I don't know how can you deduct that the next iPad won't have the A6 because they've decided to go with iPad HD instead of the iPad 3? Now maybe if they decided to name it iPad 2 HD, then it will make sense.

iPhone 4
iPhone 4s <- minor

iPad 2
iPad 2 HD <- minor, A5x

iPad 2
iPad HD <- um, can't really deduct anything.

Although the name could be HD, this article is really bad.... Its full of statements that are simply false in their logic, like you point out here....

iPad 2 HD sounds about right. Apple tends to save major version upgrades for products that look physically different. I think it's also part of their planned upgrade cycles for customers. Apple knows most people who bought an iPad 2 aren't going to rush out and buy an iPad 2012 model. So they keep the design and name similar to communicate that the new model has 'nice to have' features but isn't such a huge generational leap that you should have buyers remorse over your previous generation model. The new display will be beautiful but I still think it's a 'nice to have' feature not a 'must have' feature for most people.

I disagree, the 2 year cycle of the iPhone market which is tied to the 2 year contract should not be confused with the iPad market. This upgrade is major. People will buy a lot of them including iPad 2 owners....

If indeed it does cost significantly more to manufacture, then I can see Apple naming the newest iPad the HD and raising the base price, while retaining the iPad 2 at its current price. That way it won't seem like the iPad just got more expensive, only that a more pro model has been added to the line up. Sales of the iPad 2 don't seem to have slowed so it could very easily continue to do well without a discount, and the iPad HD could still seem a good value even at a hundred dollars more. After all, you can't get that kind of a resolution right now in the priciest of Apple's MacBooks!

iPad 2 HD sounds about right. Apple tends to save major version upgrades for products that look physically different. I think it's also part of their planned upgrade cycles for customers. Apple knows most people who bought an iPad 2 aren't going to rush out and buy an iPad 2012 model. So they keep the design and name similar to communicate that the new model has 'nice to have' features but isn't such a huge generational leap that you should have buyers remorse over your previous generation model. The new display will be beautiful but I still think it's a 'nice to have' feature not a 'must have' feature for most people.

If they name it iPad 2 HD I'll eat my iPad 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz

IMO, a retina display on the new iPad would be a total game changer. Like night and day. Much more so than an incremental increase in CPU speed. And much more apparent to average consumers.

Which is why 'HD' makes sense. It really doesn't matter where in the sequence of iPads it comes or what previous naming conventions point to. 'HD' says one thing only - 'screen'. The rest is really secondary, even Siri.

1) Modern HD is defined by 720p of horizontal lines and leaves the number of vertical lines open as the width varies. After 1080p became a reality and with HD already taken 1080p became known as FHD for Full High Definition. This follows the same pattern as 720p.

2) Can you point to any displays that advertised Retina Display before the iPhone 4 came out? Of course not, but that doesn't mean Apple wasn't allowed to use the term for marketing purposes.

3) There are at least 3 video standards that use "HD" in their name and are 1440x1080 resolution. The Panasonic DVCPRO HD 1080, HDV 1080i/1080, and
Sony HDCAM (1080).

PS: Note that Full Aperture Native 2K has a resolution of 2048 × 1556 for an aspect ratio of 1.32:1. The rumoured iPad will be 2048x1536 with a 1.33: asepect ratio. Both are generically listed as 4:3 aspect ratio because they are that close.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Just call the darn thing iPad and be done with it. Apple's computers and iPods don't have numbers in their naming convention. I say stop with the numbers for iPhone and iPad too.

Please explain to me how Apple can 'stop with numbers' when its selling 3 generations of iPhones at once? They don't use numbers for their other products because they dont sell them concurrently- they get replaced, ie. laptops, iMacs, laptops, etc. Just a small detail you seem to have missed.

HD in today's market is used to refer to resolutions like 720p and 1080p.
And there's already an upper-limit for use of the "HD" term, with terms like "2K" and "4K" starting to replace "HD" in the industry for displays with larger numbers of pixels.

The problem is that there is no previously defined 2k resolution that is near 1536 scan lines. 2048x1080 is the closest. So if one is going to be a stickler for specific dimensions, then it's still out.

In reality, "HD" doesn't always mean one of two resolutions, except in the TV market. Heck, people were mentioning HD meaning iPad version of software.